The Problem is the Patriarchy

[_Symmachus]

The comparison with Jacobites is apt. Stunning. I have reflected on this before. You are right that this is an issue of identity and pride. But being one who felt very Mormon as an identity, I wouldn’t so readily paint it in such unflattering strokes. Being a descendant of pioneers was a big deal in my life. It has emotional significance to me. The CoC does lack that narrative. So, yeah, guilty as charged. I don’t think being of pioneer stock makes me better, but it is something that has real meaning to me.

I empathize with the very last clause: it has meaning to you. The problem to my mind is not that someone takes meaning from their ancestry but rather the insistence that others should as well.

And yes of course, I am painting broad strokes, mostly over the white faces of the prominent "progressives" in Mormonism who, if they were sincerely and largely progressive in their views, would either leave the Church (without engineering their excommunications, complete with candle-light vigils and other saccharin performances) to make the point or sign up with something like Community of Christ. Why don't they?

There is lack of awareness among progressive-ish Mormons with platforms both about their obsession with dynasty and power: is there anything materially stopping them from ordaining a woman at home or performing a same-sex wedding? Why are they so damn insistent on getting the hierarchy to see things their way and, essentially, gaining admittance into the hierarchy? Why do they need to feel accepted by a clique of impotent geriatrics? Because of course it is the office and its history they respect, not the person. But they are also clueless about the ways they deploy the symbolism of dynasty and power. If we are wondering why progressive-ish Mormons aren't more interested in the Community of Christ (or any other Christian tradition, for that matter), it's because Community of Christ doesn't care about those things, and prominent progressivist Mormons do.

It's not a difficult problem for progressives; "to be or not to be" a Mormon isn't a hard question, if one is sincere about the convictions that give rise to the question. It's only hard if you want to have it both ways. But as an ancient Christian once put it, "ὁδοὶ δύο εἰσί..."

[_Kishkumen]

There is lack of awareness among progressive-ish Mormons with platforms both about their obsession with dynasty and power: is there anything materially stopping them from ordaining a woman at home or performing a same-sex wedding? Why are they so damn insistent on getting the hierarchy to see things their way and, essentially, gaining admittance into the hierarchy? Why do they need to feel accepted by a clique of impotent geriatrics? Because of course it is the office and its history they respect, not the person. But they are also clueless about the ways they deploy the symbolism of dynasty and power. If we are wondering why progressive-ish Mormons aren't more interested in the Community of Christ (or any other Christian tradition, for that matter), it's because Community of Christ doesn't care about those things, and prominent progressivist Mormons do.

It's not a difficult problem for progressives; "to be or not to be" a Mormon isn't a hard question, if one is sincere about the convictions that give rise to the question. It's only hard if you want to have it both ways. But as an ancient Christian once put it, "ὁδοὶ δύο εἰσί..."

I love this. Great stuff. And, probably true. Some of the big names in the prog-Mo world have that pedigree. Even the less prog but faux "edgier" types like Nate Oman have that obvious pedigree. Hello Thomas McConkie? I am not saying these are *bad* people by any stretch. I don't really bother with them one way or the other, but it is noticeable that having these bloodlines and names does bear a certain unusual street "cred" in Mormon circles.

Yes, the office and the history. Very important things in the LDS world. There is still that sense of the existence of "noble and great ones." If you did well in the pre-mortal existence, then you will be BIC here, or some such. Lineage, lineage, lineage. And then office confers a sense of nobility. A person is a bishop long after they are in the office. So many people seeking to be seen and applauded, all the while behaving "humbly."

It's really quite complicated in a way. Identifying with Israel, patriarchal blessings, pre-mortal valiance, etc., etc., etc. Everyone wants to feel special. And the LDS Church at one time gave some folks a reason to think they were foreordained for magnificent things.

I tend to go back to the beginning, and identify with the historical moment and yearnings that caused people to search for new answers and for "Zion." I want to credit decent people for being motivated by genuine desires for something better, not only for themselves but for others. They found something that looked to them like it was what they were searching for. They sacrificed greatly for it, and there is a certain human nobility in their convictions and efforts. Still a lot of messiness and flaws, as ever there will be.

Reflecting on those things as the situation out of which I emerged is meaningful to me. I don't think they found the answers, as I don't believe such things exist. Nevertheless, I like to commemorate in my own way their memory.

[_DoubtingThomas]

It is probably true that what many, many progressive Mormons are looking for is already here in the CoC. It is a really cool organization. And, for those who do not think like I do (appreciating heretical theology and esoteric rituals), and who want priesthood for women, then the Community of Christ is an excellent choice.

I think some progressive Mormons really believe the LDS church is the only church that has the priesthood of God led by imperfect leaders.

[_Dr Exiled]

It is probably true that what many, many progressive Mormons are looking for is already here in the CoC. It is a really cool organization. And, for those who do not think like I do (appreciating heretical theology and esoteric rituals), and who want priesthood for women, then the Community of Christ is an excellent choice.

I think some progressive Mormons really believe the LDS church is the only church that has the priesthood of God led by imperfect leaders.

It's an unsustainable belief but a way to rationalize contradictions and still stay Mormon in my opinion.

[Guest]

Why are they so damn insistent on getting the hierarchy to see things their way and, essentially, gaining admittance into the hierarchy? Why do they need to feel accepted by a clique of impotent geriatrics? Because of course it is the office and its history they respect, not the person. But they are also clueless about the ways they deploy the symbolism of dynasty and power. If we are wondering why progressive-ish Mormons aren't more interested in the Community of Christ (or any other Christian tradition, for that matter), it's because Community of Christ doesn't care about those things, and prominent progressivist Mormons do.

This is a really good point. They probably don't do all of that because a good portion of Progressivism views everything in terms of hierarchy and power. They don't so much want to share power as they want to seize some of it for themselves. That's why one the current hierarchy will NEVER compromise. Believe you me the people in power know when there's a challenger on the block and they'll act to protect it. It'll die before it cedes power over to others.

If the Progressives truly believed they could create a parallel hierarchy they'd do it, but they know they have to infiltrate and usurp the power structure in place and the body of servants that support it. They lack the understanding, will, charm, and ability to sell their product. It is what it is.

- Doc

[_candygal]

Writes Gina Colvin. Let’s say she is right. We know there are many problems, but it is fair to say that this is one of the fundamental problems. What to do? Gina advocates being more vociferous, more of an activist in opposition to Mormonism’s patriarchy. Only when Mormon women stand up and make themselves heard will much needed change occur.

I don’t mean to be a wet blanket, but I’m not buying it. Mormon women who agree to the fundamentals of Mormonism will not rise up en masse against the patriarchy. Why? Well, first of all, Mormonism IS patriarchy. Patriarchy is so fundamental to Mormonism that it is nearly impossible to disentangle them.

Mormonism is about the Father whose command is obediently followed by the Son, who gives all glory back to the Father. Sure, Mormonism vaguely gestures toward the existence of the Mother, or, more accurately, the mothers, being the polygamous wives of Elohim, but these mothers are unheralded, unexplicated, and generally subjugated to Father.

Mormonism is not only the worship of Father, the name by which He is addressed, it is also the worship of Father by fathers. Fathers are the priests who intercede with Father for all. The great heroes of Mormonism are fathers. Father Moses. Father Abraham. Father Lehi. Or sons. Nephi the dutiful son. Joseph Smith the virtuous and dutiful son.

The only way around this is a fundamental change to Mormonism. It will not do to point to Emma the Elect Lady or O, My Father lyrics. New revelation and new scripture are necessary. They will not come from today’s patriolatric priesthood bearers.

Mormonism needs schism more than it needs activists. The problem with Mormonism is actually progressive Mormons who think that the answer lies in reforming the LDS Church. Mormonism IS patriarchy. New revelation is required to change that. Such revelation is not coming from the patriarchs. It must come from schismatic matriarchs. Take courage, step out, and receive revelation.

The problem is the progressives.

But young people are changing...they are who they are and don't even realize that they are progressive in their thinking. These people will be leaders someday...how could they not...they are pretty much the same in their thinking and in their times of change. Revelation could be just a generation away...(because we know where revelations really come from.

[_RockSlider]

Mormonism needs schism more than it needs activists.

Something like this perhaps?

https://assets.mubi.com/images/film/124 ... 1465917159

[_Meadowchik]

Mormonism needs schism more than it needs activists.

Something like this perhaps?

https://assets.mubi.com/images/film/124 ... 1465917159

More Mormons are leaving and speaking out, and exposing fatal flaws. Sam Young's petition is an example. I posted a blog link yesterday with an example, a woman challenging worthiness of a priesthood holder, valuing fact over feeling.

[_RockSlider]

More Mormons are leaving and speaking out, and exposing fatal flaws. Sam Young's petition is an example. I posted a blog link yesterday with an example, a woman challenging worthiness of a priesthood holder, valuing fact over feeling.

It would seem that section 132 would have to go before any woman would consider even a schysim. The whole of the temple, and doctrine seems patriarchy based. To remove every aspect of it would leave a totally different religion.

[_Water Dog]

Is there a link to the original post from from Gina Colvin?